arXiv:2611.13215 · v1
Counting Under Disagreement: Dollar-Weighted Measurement, Selective Machine Labelling and Budgeted Human Review from Disagreeing AI Readers of Administrative Text
摘要
We study AI-assisted measurement when one text label applies to many administrative records, the target is a monetary total, and the human readings that anchor the machines disagree. The testbed is 121,070 grant-purpose texts from US tax filings (799,675 records, \$126.4B), labelled by a rule-based classifier and three language models, with a designed sample of 651 texts read independently by three people under one codebook. We state exact conditions for a fixed-predictor difference estimator and for a cross-fitted predictor whose folds are assigned to the whole frame before sampling, under Poisson sampling, and assess the implemented fixed-size procedures by simulation: 8 predictors whose own totals span \$11.2-15.0B agree to within \$0.4B once rectified. Two rules that accept machine labels at a stated dollar-weighted error, weighted conformal p-values under a dollar measure and Learn-then-Test on the design estimate of the error, are evaluated on nested held-out folds and on re-draws of the design with synthetic truths; their error control in deployment is not established, and the count-based rule accepts no text under a dollar-drawn sample. In a replay that charges every human label, a two-phase review policy whose calibrator is fitted on its own first phase reduces the RMSE of the total by 28% at a budget of 100 texts relative to dollar-proportional sampling, while pure Neyman allocation fails with an uncalibrated predictor. Independent readers shift the estimated total by \$3.93B, 2.2 times the within-reader sampling interval, and institution-level intervals under-cover at every size. Every headline result is re-run under each reader. The results identify both the benefits and the limits of using learned predictions to decide what a person should verify.
作者备注：61 pages, 8 figures, 46 tables. Replication record (calibration sample, population aggregates, prompts and analysis code): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23285230